Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

GOD! Save Me From Your People!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I'm talking about war, not fighting an insurgency. Besides all of those things you listed as your lack of proof of a kill em all doctrine are contained in the Law of armed combat.

Soldiers fighting soldiers there is very little thought that has to be put into whom to kill and whom not to. It's done that way on purpose, that is why we have rules about wearing uniforms, not posing as civilians, not setting up camps in churches, occupied schools, hospitals etc. You know, all those inconvenient rules the Terrorists dispose of which make ROE's necessary.

Even comportment to the Geneva Convention and crazy ROE's that turn our soldiers into mindless, sacrificial robots do not obviate the fact that soldiers do judge whom to kill or not. They are not without formal guidelines, but those guidelines do not cover every situation, nor do they replace the soldier's own mind. Wars involve an endless array of complex situations that are beyond even the top Pentagon official's ability to plan. Is this person an enemy informant? The ROE's say to call HQ to get approval to return fire, but these guys just wiped out half my squad and we don't have time! Every time a soldier pulls the trigger or relaxes his aim, he is making a judgment about whether or not to kill. Before he can follow ROE's, or just orders, he makes the judgment that they are right, or not, to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A great deal on Moral is on Rush's song, "Lock and Key":

I've always interpreted these in a negative light. It sounds like Neil is saying that we all have this fatal flaw of a killer instinct, but some of us manage to suppress it by keeping it "under lock and key". He doesn't want to face his own killer instinct, so he hides it away. That's a horribly malevolent view of man and just plain wrong. His lyrics, however, have definitely gone in that direction since "Grace Under Pressure" and especially since the tragic loss of his wife and daughter. It's too bad, because they're great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even comportment to the Geneva Convention and crazy ROE's that turn our soldiers into mindless, sacrificial robots do not obviate the fact that soldiers do judge whom to kill or not. They are not without formal guidelines, but those guidelines do not cover every situation, nor do they replace the soldier's own mind. Wars involve an endless array of complex situations that are beyond even the top Pentagon official's ability to plan. Is this person an enemy informant? The ROE's say to call HQ to get approval to return fire, but these guys just wiped out half my squad and we don't have time! Every time a soldier pulls the trigger or relaxes his aim, he is making a judgment about whether or not to kill.

You seem stuck on conflicts in which there are "crazy ROE's". In a one on one shooting war, like WW1, WW2 and Korea the situations you talk about would not arise. The ROE in war is kill the other combatant before he kills you. I as a front line troop would not be hanging around long enough to decide if farmer Joe was an enemy informant, that's a job for the REMF's and mucky-mucks who will be hanging around after the front line has passed through.

Before he can follow ROE's, or just orders, he makes the judgment that they are right, or not, to follow.

The civilian idea that every order must be questioned is (in my opinion) a derivative of the Hollywoodification of soldiering. The actual instances where soldiers are ordered en masse or individually to carry out illegal acts are as rare as a chance at winning a lottery. Sorry, the Chain of Command is not full of "Apocalypse Now" Colonel Kurtz's, nor are the rank and file composed primarily of soldiers like "Platoon"'s Bunny, and believe it or not the Army does a really really good job of getting rid of the ones that are long before they can issue an order of beat a child to death.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I'm sorry, what I said earlier was a typo.

But I'll elaborate still.

I am a member of mankind, and I can allocate that because I have the capacity for logic and I apply logic to comprehend the world and decide what values are necessary for my survival (definition of human). But because I allow myself to live, I cannot justifiably take away another member of mankind's life. It would be hypocrisy, and there are no circumstances when taking a human life is allowed (or at least in my book).

But for the ruling majority, death should be allowed as a punishment under certain scenarios. I don't agree with those laws, but I live in a society where the majority does, so by living voluntarily in the U.S I must consent to those laws. I am under free will to move to a country or even state outlaws death penalty, but I choose not to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But because I allow myself to live, I cannot justifiably take away another member of mankind's life. It would be hypocrisy, and there are no circumstances when taking a human life is allowed (or at least in my book).

No circumstances? If you were the victim of an unprovoked attack and the only way to continue living was to kill your attacker, you wouldn't make that choice? You sound like a pacifist. Choosing to value the principle of non-violence over your own life is an irrational choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Thats a very "absolute" scenario, and very few and far between do we find absolute scenarios in life.

No other way to subdue my attacker?

Lets say I did take that man's life, which if I was put in such an absolute situation, then I probably would just because of basic instincts;

it would not justify the murder. Even if I did kill that man, to save my own life, I wouldn't be able to satisfy my moral conciousness afterwards.

That would be my own decision. I wouldn't force that guilt on someone put in the same situation, but it would not relinquish the guilt if I was put in the scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats a very "absolute" scenario, and very few and far between do we find absolute scenarios in life.

I find myself making decision at work (policing) in 'absolute' situations quite frequently. They don't always involve life or death decisions, though some have, but they quite often involve clear-cut decisions on whether or not using force was appropriate.

then I probably would just because of basic instincts

Are you sure you have 'instincts'? What do you mean by 'instincts'? What 'instincts' do you have?

Even if I did kill that man, to save my own life, I wouldn't be able to satisfy my moral conciousness afterwards.

Does this mean that you don't value your life enough to defend it against the unjustified aggression of another person trying to take it? Do you value your life so little that you don't think you 'should' live when weighed against the life of another person who would forcibly take your life from you? Is his (or her) life worth just as much as your life?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

The one who ordained the true moral law, the one who gives our lives purpose, is not any human. It is God. The Bible was written under the influence of the Holy Spirit, so it cannot be wrong (though we could have screwed up in translating and transmitting it). Though, Jason did mess up a little bit. In Paul's Epistle to the Romans it is stated that the Old Testament is obsolete. So the Ten Commandments (at least in the literal since, as you can support every point with a New Testament quote) are not the Law, the New Testament is(unless he is Jewish).

Edited by Abelard
Link to post
Share on other sites
The one who ordained the true moral law, the one who gives our lives purpose, is not any human. It is God. The Bible was written under the influence of the Holy Spirit, so it cannot be wrong (though we could have screwed up in translating and transmitting it). Though, Jason did mess up a little bit. In Paul's Epistle to the Romans it is stated that the Old Testament is obsolete. So the Ten Commandments (at least in the literal since, as you can support every point with a New Testament quote) are not the Law, the New Testament is(unless he is Jewish).

I'll refer you to the following thread:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...82&hl=bible

Read and enjoy. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...